Friday, April 15, 2016

Okay- first of all, you must LOVE (and I mean LOVE, not like sort of) Richard Linklater's style. Secondly, you must LOVE (not sort of like) guy bonding movies. Now, I loved Dazed and Confused. Being relatively tribal as a reviewer, let me say that those were, indeed, my people. But I don't really know these guys in this movie- and when it is almost nothing but talking and interacting with one another as guys, it can be a little boring for someone who "wasn't there" in that time frame. My husband really liked it because a) he's a guy and b)he was into sports and c) he was young in the 80s. The story goes a little all over the map. But there are genuinely some moments where I laughed out loud. The biggest problem is that this guy bonding/college experience movie crawls its way up to almost TWO HOURS. You heard me. It isn't a bad movie- and in fact, it is probably pretty good for a certain segment of the population. But no chatty, guy bonding movie needs to ramp up to 2 hours. Even guys who GET this movie probably don't want it to go on that long. Edit, Richard, EDIT.
Still, I don't want to discourage anyone who thinks this is a good idea from going. So it'll get 2 stars. But I have the feeling your sofa at home will be more comfy.

How this movie was liked by 88% of the audience just mystifies me. This is a terrible movie. Sally Field mugs and preens and, in general. acts like a late middle-aged idiot who believes her very young new boss is going to be her boyfriend. Since he is also portrayed as a numbskull, I guess she figures she has a chance. She is given so many contrivances and bizarre affectations that you feel very uncomfortable watching this mess. She dresses like a senile Cyndi Lauper, and talks like Kristin Wiig in those short-arm skits on SNL. This entire thing was an embarrassing mess. Field is so over the top quirky that you just wonder if she was missing a house payment and had to take this role and follow this ridiculous direction. Want to see a bad movie? Here it is. You want a charmingly quirky movie just rent Ruby Sparks.

This is basically about the moral dilemma that exists in any war- is killing civilians (albeit one little girl) as collateral damage in order to prevent more loss of life (in this case from suicide vest terrorists) morally wrong. I have no idea how real the chain of command is that is portrayed in this storyline. Helen Mirren is the British colonel in charge of the decision of whether or not to allow a drone to bomb a house where terrorists are suiting up. Keep in mind, it takes 1 hour and 45 minutes of back and forthing before you get to get up and leave. And despite its exhausting "yes or no" and contacting other countries, etc, it is at least thought provoking. If you have wondered how civilians get caught up in things, go see it. I personally felt that any parents who let their little girl venture out into a Jihadist neighborhood to sell bread are pretty bad parents. What would it take you to keep your child safe? And another point was that the little girl was not allowed to play- she is in a community where she will have no future and possibly be stoned to death, or mutilated for some crummy infraction of the male rules. The potential death of a child - one with little or no future- is deliberately done by the writers of this. It makes the entire premise a conundrum. I'll give it 3 stars because it really does make you think. People say war is impersonal now because of drones- I'd argue it is far more personal when the person sending the drone has to watch it hit a human target.